LIBERAL CONTROL OF THOUGHT

[Hagar]

Another example out of the Liberal Playbook.  If someone doesn't agree, make it a law.  Whether you think climate change is man made, or just weather cycles, this kind of thought process should concern you. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Judex]

That is not what is going on here. It is the law that we owe a duty to others not to cause them harm. That is simply basic tort law that exists in all American jurisdictions. It already exists. If one misleads another about the existence of a dangerous thing and the misled person is thereby harmed or put in a worse position than they otherwise might have been, the fraudulent actor should be held responsible. It wasn't until 1972 that the government took a hard stance on the danger of asbestos. Prior to that, asbestos manufacturers had known for decades that the substance caused cancer and at the very least it was killing workers in a variety of ways. In fact, those companies hired doctors to downplay the risks. Similarly, big tobacco hired doctors to downplay the risks of tobacco. Their CEOs sat in front of congress and lied repeatedly. For decades, Big Oil has hired scientists to downplay the risks of climate change. Somehow, I doubt that you would want to be trapped in an asbestos-filled room with nothing to do but smoke cigarettes now. But, would you have known any better 30 or 40 years ago? The last scientific body to deny anthropomorphic climate change was the petroleum engineers and now even they are too embarrassed to tow that line. This article is simply pointing out that if it turns out that the Oil & Gas interests that have misled the public about the danger of climate change prevented us from doing something to make the damage less severe, they should be punished. I agree.

[LumRaiderFan]

23 minutes ago, Judex said:

That is not what is going on here. It is the law that we owe a duty to others not to cause them harm. That is simply basic tort law that exists in all American jurisdictions. It already exists. If one misleads another about the existence of a dangerous thing and the misled person is thereby harmed or put in a worse position than they otherwise might have been, the fraudulent actor should be held responsible. It wasn't until 1972 that the government took a hard stance on the danger of asbestos. Prior to that, asbestos manufacturers had known for decades that the substance caused cancer and at the very least it was killing workers in a variety of ways. In fact, those companies hired doctors to downplay the risks. Similarly, big tobacco hired doctors to downplay the risks of tobacco. Their CEOs sat in front of congress and lied repeatedly. For decades, Big Oil has hired scientists to downplay the risks of climate change. Somehow, I doubt that you would want to be trapped in an asbestos-filled room with nothing to do but smoke cigarettes now. But, would you have known any better 30 or 40 years ago? The last scientific body to deny anthropomorphic climate change was the petroleum engineers and now even they are too embarrassed to tow that line. This article is simply pointing out that if it turns out that the Oil & Gas interests that have misled the public about the danger of climate change prevented us from doing something to make the damage less severe, they should be punished. I agree.

Punished by who, the fed gov...the same folks that are doing billions in trade with countries that are boiling out more air pollution than we ever dreamed about.

The air is clean here now (just ask any farmer that has to pay for sulfur now)

If anyone really thinks global warming is man made, you would be more effective holding your picket sign up in China, North Korea or Russia.

Oh, and you better figure out how to cork those volcanos...or punish them.

[stevenash]

We will also need to figure a recourse for farmers and the methane gas emitted by the cows.

[Judex]

14 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Punished by who, the fed gov...the same folks that are doing billions in trade with countries that are boiling out more air pollution than we ever dreamed about.

The air is clean here now (just ask any farmer that has to pay for sulfur now)

If anyone really thinks global warming is man made, you would be more effective holding your picket sign up in China, North Korea or Russia.

Oh, and you better figure out how to cork those volcanos...or punish them.

I believe that you are misinterpreting the meaning of "punish." Not in the sent to prison sense, rather in the pay for the damage you have caused sense. Traditionally these types of suits have sounded in state courts, but I could see federal jurisdiction being appropriate.

It's funny that you mention that the air is clean here now. Ironic even. That dirty old government got involved, lol. And it wasn't until there were serious punitive consequences that companies started cleaning up their act. The things we take for granted . . .

As to whether I believe global warming is man-made: Of course certain factors and changes would exist with or without man. BUT, the great weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that manmade activities are not only having a negative impact, we are having a significant negative impact. The only way you could be unaware of this is that you are not interested in really knowing about it. Even the Oil companies are now taking steps to walk it back. You seem to be unaware that you are part of a very uninformed minority.

[Judex]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Make sure to come back and argue to me what a liberal bastion Bloomberg is after you see this graph that pretty clearly refutes the entirety of your position

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, Judex said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Make sure to come back and argue to me what a liberal bastion Bloomberg is after you see this graph that pretty clearly refutes the entirety of your position

Wow...one article, from the "conservative" Bloomburg .

Let me ask you a question...were all the scientists in the 70s that proclaimed global cooling was going to be an epidemic wrong?

They had lots of data to back up their theories as well...and we were pumping out much more air pollution back then...should have been a warming heyday.

All the evidence was there...only it didn't happen.

[Hagar]

28 minutes ago, Judex said:

That is not what is going on here. It is the law that we owe a duty to others not to cause them harm. That is simply basic tort law that exists in all American jurisdictions. It already exists. If one misleads another about the existence of a dangerous thing and the misled person is thereby harmed or put in a worse position than they otherwise might have been, the fraudulent actor should be held responsible. It wasn't until 1972 that the government took a hard stance on the danger of asbestos. Prior to that, asbestos manufacturers had known for decades that the substance caused cancer and at the very least it was killing workers in a variety of ways. In fact, those companies hired doctors to downplay the risks. Similarly, big tobacco hired doctors to downplay the risks of tobacco. Their CEOs sat in front of congress and lied repeatedly. For decades, Big Oil has hired scientists to downplay the risks of climate change. Somehow, I doubt that you would want to be trapped in an asbestos-filled room with nothing to do but smoke cigarettes now. But, would you have known any better 30 or 40 years ago? The last scientific body to deny anthropomorphic climate change was the petroleum engineers and now even they are too embarrassed to tow that line. This article is simply pointing out that if it turns out that the Oil & Gas interests that have misled the public about the danger of climate change prevented us from doing something to make the damage less severe, they should be punished. I agree.

I understand your point.  I worked with asbestos.  But I don't see the similarities in this case.  Asbestos & Tobacco mfg's knew their products were harmful, but did nothing.  I'll even admit the weather is changing, I'm just not totally convinced it's man made.  The weather is always changing.  That, plus the fact that some climate change scientists have been found creating/changing data to prove their claims, leaves many to believe, myself included, that many scientists are on this bandwagon for grant money or notoriety.   Also, in 1970, the environmentalists were warning of a new ice age, due to global temperatures dropping between 1940 and 1970.  Now it's warming.  IMO these environmental scientists are to quick to holler wolf.  

Again, I understand your point, and respect your beliefs, and I'm certainly no lawyer.  I do agree that IF it could be proved O&G misled the public (as A&T did) they should be punished. But since the weather patterns do change, and the science of climate change is not an exact science, how anyone, including the Oil & Gas Engineers could know that the industry was affecting the climate, is beyond me. 

PS:  Don't see you posting often.  Hope you find time to do so.  We may not agree on everything, but I liked your presentation.  

[LumRaiderFan]

48 minutes ago, Judex said:

I believe that you are misinterpreting the meaning of "punish." Not in the sent to prison sense, rather in the pay for the damage you have caused sense. Traditionally these types of suits have sounded in state courts, but I could see federal jurisdiction being appropriate.

It's funny that you mention that the air is clean here now. Ironic even. That dirty old government got involved, lol. And it wasn't until there were serious punitive consequences that companies started cleaning up their act. The things we take for granted . . .

As to whether I believe global warming is man-made: Of course certain factors and changes would exist with or without man. BUT, the great weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that manmade activities are not only having a negative impact, we are having a significant negative impact. The only way you could be unaware of this is that you are not interested in really knowing about it. Even the Oil companies are now taking steps to walk it back. You seem to be unaware that you are part of a very uninformed minority.

lol...there it is...I don't agree with your point, so I must be uninformed.

Is any of the evidence you site from the same sources that were caught red-handed skewing the evidence that backed up man-made global warming?

I'm still looking for an answer on the global cooling / ice-age that never occurred...with so much evidence to back up that it would.

Someone may be uninformed here, but I don't think it's me.

[Judex]

44 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...there it is...I don't agree with your point, so I must be uninformed.

Is any of the evidence you site from the same sources that were caught red-handed skewing the evidence that backed up man-made global warming?

I'm still looking for an answer on the global cooling / ice-age that never occurred...with so much evidence to back up that it would.

Someone may be uninformed here, but I don't think it's me.

Yeah, who were those people caught "red-handed" exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that the entire scientific community has based their opinion on a group of people that you claim "skewed the evidence?" And you can buy into that, but you cannot fathom that the Oil & Gas industry (who has the biggest motive of anyone on this topic) hired their own scientists to skew information in the other direction? Really?

There was never "so much evidence" of a global cooling event. In fact it was 1970s conjecture.

I realize that it sounds condescending and offensive to suggest that someone is uninformed. I don't know another way to communicate it though. Seriously, had you taken some time to objectively research these suggestions that you just made, I really do not think you would have made them.

 

Yeah, I posted something from Bloomberg because it is a conservative source. Do I really need to link data from all parts of the spectrum for you to realize that there's a chance that you have been misled on some of what you believe?

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, Judex said:

I believe that you are misinterpreting the meaning of "punish." Not in the sent to prison sense, rather in the pay for the damage you have caused sense. Traditionally these types of suits have sounded in state courts, but I could see federal jurisdiction being appropriate.

It's funny that you mention that the air is clean here now. Ironic even. That dirty old government got involved, lol. And it wasn't until there were serious punitive consequences that companies started cleaning up their act. The things we take for granted . . .

As to whether I believe global warming is man-made: Of course certain factors and changes would exist with or without man. BUT, the great weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that manmade activities are not only having a negative impact, we are having a significant negative impact. The only way you could be unaware of this is that you are not interested in really knowing about it. Even the Oil companies are now taking steps to walk it back. You seem to be unaware that you are part of a very uninformed minority.

Wow, me too uniformed minority?   I regret giving you kudos for your presentation. My original impression of you was a liberal who we could actually have meaningful discussions with.   IMO the O&G industry "giving in" to climate change is to prevent what the left wants to assert, that they're culpable.  If O&G is causing all this, then isn't everyone who drives, or rides, a vehicle?  What's the alternative?  

There's another interesting part of this story.   According to climate scientists, the earth was cooling between 1940 & 1970 (which you conveniently call conjecture) What happened about the same time?  I'll tell you, in the mid 1970's the Fed Govt had tetraethyl lead removed from gasoline (one reason, it damaged the catalytic converters).   At the time I commented to several friends that I had reservations about this due to the large volume of exhaust, and the fact that no one had studied the long term effects of the new emissions we were going to be pumping into the atmosphere.  To be honest, the reason I questioned the transition, I worked in a chemical plant that made tetraethyl lead.

What I'm saying, if fossil fuels are causing climate change, then we're all guilty.  Me, you, oil & gas, and most probably, the US Govt is the most guilty of all.  And if the left is really firmly convinced O&G is causing all this, I can't imagine the panic they would have had in the 1930's during The Dust Bowl in the Midwest.   Oh my goodness, the sky is falling.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

59 minutes ago, Judex said:

Yeah, who were those people caught "red-handed" exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that the entire scientific community has based their opinion on a group of people that you claim "skewed the evidence?" And you can buy into that, but you cannot fathom that the Oil & Gas industry (who has the biggest motive of anyone on this topic) hired their own scientists to skew information in the other direction? Really?

There was never "so much evidence" of a global cooling event. In fact it was 1970s conjecture.

I realize that it sounds condescending and offensive to suggest that someone is uninformed. I don't know another way to communicate it though. Seriously, had you taken some time to objectively research these suggestions that you just made, I really do not think you would have made them.

 

Yeah, I posted something from Bloomberg because it is a conservative source. Do I really need to link data from all parts of the spectrum for you to realize that there's a chance that you have been misled on some of what you believe?

No worries...not offended at all...you can't no matter how hard you try.

It's amazing that you can tell by a few posts how much research I have done on global warming...I bet if I had agreed with you, I would be getting an A+ for my research efforts.

See where I'm going...well informed to some simply means they agree with me.

[Judex]

27 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No worries...not offended at all...you can't no matter how hard you try.

It's amazing that you can tell by a few posts how much research I have done on global warming...I bet if I had agreed with you, I would be getting an A+ for my research efforts.

See where I'm going...well informed to some simply means they agree with me.

I am abrasive and direct and intended or not, I am going to offend. Yes, of course I can tell how much research you have done by these posts. You are either being disingenuous by your response here and I have never ever gotten that impression of you in the past, or you would have actually exposed yourself to a wider range of information on the topic at which point you would have realized that there is a reason that the rest of the civilized world is taking it seriously. No, I wouldn't have praised you for research efforts merely for agreeing with me. I would however have had something positive to say had you actually demonstrated it rather than parrot debunked talking points. It's pretty hard to be from SETex and not be inundated with the pro Oil & Gas agenda. Even working people rely on it for subsistence. We have founded our entire existence on it. This change is going to be super hard and slow. Slow threats do not get people's attention. Which is precisely what took so long for asbestos. A 15-40 year latency period for a disease ran counter to the way people think about harmful effects. As a result it took a hundred years of disastrous results to adequately address the problem.

To me well informed means exactly what the words indicate. I am not looking for allies nor am I looking for enemies. Intelligent discourse and truth are my primary concern. I replied to this post because it occurred to me that the OP had misunderstood the circumstances of the original article. An honest, easy mistake given our misleading political rhetoric and the wealth of misinformation to be found across the spectrum. It doesn't really matter whether you believe anthropomorphic Climate change to be a legitimate concern to appreciate my comments on the original post. That article is not a call for a chilling effect concerning what people should believe - it is a call for consequences under existing law if it turns out that bad actors profited from misleading people into a more dangerous environment.

57 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Wow, me too uniformed minority?   I regret giving you kudos for your presentation. My original impression of you was a liberal who we could actually have meaningful discussions with.   IMO the O&G industry "giving in" to climate change is to prevent what the left wants to assert, that they're culpable.  If O&G is causing all this, then isn't everyone who drives, or rides, a vehicle?  What's the alternative?  

There's another interesting part of this story.   According to climate scientists, the earth was cooling between 1940 & 1970 (which you conveniently call conjecture) What happened about the same time?  I'll tell you, in the mid 1970's the Fed Govt had tetraethyl lead removed from gasoline (one reason, it damaged the catalytic converters).   At the time I commented to several friends that I had reservations about this due to the large volume of exhaust, and the fact that no one had studied the long term effects of the new emissions we were going to be pumping into the atmosphere.  To be honest, the reason I questioned the transition, I worked in a chemical plant that made tetraethyl lead.

What I'm saying, if fossil fuels are causing climate change, then we're all guilty.  Me, you, oil & gas, and most probably, the US Govt is the most guilty of all.  And if the left is really firmly convinced O&G is causing all this, I can't imagine the panic they would have had in the 1930's during The Dust Bowl in the Midwest.   Oh my goodness, the sky is falling.

 

I appreciated your initial response and hope that we can return to that tenor. I am sorry you took my words as offensively and hope it doesn't deter fruitful discourse going forward.

I think that if the two of you look into it you will realize that yes, we as a nation are culpable. In some ways we are leading the charge against it. Even real bad actors like China with their coal emissions are now investing heavily into solar technology. They are getting ahead of us once again. Not only will they surpass us in efforts to correct the problems, they will position themselves to benefit more economically from it.

You should in fact be concerned that the sky is falling. The polar caps are in fact melting at an alarming rate. If we wait til our faces are melting off, there's really nothing that we can do.

Even if you didn't believe that anthro activities are the primary cause, NO ONE denies that the climate is changing for the worse and NO ONE denies that our fossil fuel burning activities make it worse. SO, to that extent, EVERYONE has an incentive to do something to at least try and reverse the trend - whether we caused it or not.

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, Judex said:

I am abrasive and direct and intended or not, I am going to offend. Yes, of course I can tell how much research you have done by these posts. You are either being disingenuous by your response here and I have never ever gotten that impression of you in the past, or you would have actually exposed yourself to a wider range of information on the topic at which point you would have realized that there is a reason that the rest of the civilized world is taking it seriously. No, I wouldn't have praised you for research efforts merely for agreeing with me. I would however have had something positive to say had you actually demonstrated it rather than parrot debunked talking points. It's pretty hard to be from SETex and not be inundated with the pro Oil & Gas agenda. Even working people rely on it for subsistence. We have founded our entire existence on it. This change is going to be super hard and slow. Slow threats do not get people's attention. Which is precisely what took so long for asbestos. A 15-40 year latency period for a disease ran counter to the way people think about harmful effects. As a result it took a hundred years of disastrous results to adequately address the problem.

To me well informed means exactly what the words indicate. I am not looking for allies nor am I looking for enemies. Intelligent discourse and truth are my primary concern. I replied to this post because it occurred to me that the OP had misunderstood the circumstances of the original article. An honest, easy mistake given our misleading political rhetoric and the wealth of misinformation to be found across the spectrum. It doesn't really matter whether you believe anthropomorphic Climate change to be a legitimate concern to appreciate my comments on the original post. That article is not a call for a chilling effect concerning what people should believe - it is a call for consequences under existing law if it turns out that bad actors profited from misleading people into a more dangerous environment.

I appreciated your initial response and hope that we can return to that tenor. I am sorry you took my words as offensively and hope it doesn't deter fruitful discourse going forward.

I think that if the two of you look into it you will realize that yes, we as a nation are culpable. In some ways we are leading the charge against it. Even real bad actors like China with their coal emissions are now investing heavily into solar technology. They are getting ahead of us once again. Not only will they surpass us in efforts to correct the problems, they will position themselves to benefit more economically from it.

You should in fact be concerned that the sky is falling. The polar caps are in fact melting at an alarming rate. If we wait til our faces are melting off, there's really nothing that we can do.

Even if you didn't believe that anthro activities are the primary cause, NO ONE denies that the climate is changing for the worse and NO ONE denies that our fossil fuel burning activities make it worse. SO, to that extent, EVERYONE has an incentive to do something to at least try and reverse the trend - whether we caused it or not.

That's where you are wrong...we know the earth cools and the earth warms...it is currently in a warming trend by a few degrees.

You are allowing folks that take a snapshot of the earth's cycle and say we have enough information to call it a disaster.

Guess what comes with that disaster...folks that must step in and control the energy industry for our own good...hmmm.

Stop claiming like Al Gore that the debate is over and the earth's warming is caused by man when we have a miniscule slice of time to go by. 

We (the US) are doing what we can to clean up the environment...anyone that works in the industry can see that...but to say without a doubt that global warming is manmade is wrong.

I would be willing to bet I have read many of the same articles you have on this (well informed)...I just happen to see the agenda many have that will grab more power for them to regulate the energy industry so we can supposedly all avoid disaster, you don't.

[stevenash]

Is it my imagination or are the prognosticated consequences always 30 to 40 years in the future?  Didn't Mr. Gore suggest in the early part of the decade that Manhattan would be under water by 2012?

[LumRaiderFan]

11 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Is it my imagination or are the prognosticated consequences always 30 to 40 years in the future?  Didn't Mr. Gore suggest in the early part of the decade that Manhattan would be under water by 2012?

Yes and Yes. 

 

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, Judex said:

"That article is not a call for a chilling effect concerning what people should believe - it is a call for consequences under existing law if it turns out that bad actors profited from misleading people into a more dangerous environment." 

If you believe this, then what should be the consequences for bad actors profiting from misleading people the other way...like the man-made global warming profit Mr. Al Gore. Shouldn't he be in jail by now. Obama has said many times that the debate was over. Shouldn't he share a cell with Gore.

I also find it astonishing that you are accusing others on here of "towing the line" of deniers when everything you've stated so far is right down the line of the man-made global warming gloom and doom prognosticators. (Who have been wildly wrong in every one of their predictions). And like you said in an earlier post, it is evident how much research YOU have done on the subject. Please enlightened us with proof of the detrimental effects of man on the global climate patterns. Since I'm fairly certain you haven't done the research, I can save you some time. It doesn't exist.

While you're doing research on this, please enlightened us on the effect of volcanos on Earth's climate. Add in sea fissures, earthquakes, glacial solar glare, glacial movements, solar hot spots, solar flares, solar mass thermal ejections, sun hibernation, the moon's gravitational pull, the variations of Earth's axis tilt, the variations of Earth's orbit, the variations of the moon's orbit, cow flatulence (thanks Nash for reminding me of that one) and so on and so on. When you can answer all of these things, you may be a 1,000,000th of the way of answering man's effect on global warming. Again, I can save you some time. You won't find anything.

[baddog]

I'm doing my part to rid the earth of cow flatulence....I'm eating the cows. Sorry, had to say that line from Ron White. Here come the vegans!

Ok, back to global warming.

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

I'm doing my part to rid the earth of cow flatulence....I'm eating the cows. Sorry, had to say that line from Ron White. Here come the vegans!

Ok, back to global warming.

As am I doing my part bd.   Just finished supper.   Ump ump ump and another cow bites the dust, ump ump!    As Sam Eliott said, "Beef, it's what's for dinner".